- Thank you received: 0
Doppler-like effects
18 years 11 months ago #14370
by Jim
Reply from was created by Jim
The thing about EMF is it doesn't obay the laws of thermodynamics. The EMF is the cause of thermal effects as well as other effects. The laws of thermodynamics are about what matter does when it is effected by EMF.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 11 months ago #14452
by JMB
Replied by JMB on topic Reply from Jacques Moret-Bailly
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />The thing about EMF is it doesn't obay the laws of thermodynamics.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Reject EMF.
<br />The thing about EMF is it doesn't obay the laws of thermodynamics.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Reject EMF.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 11 months ago #13017
by Thomas
Replied by Thomas on topic Reply from Thomas Smid
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by JMB</i>
<br />Looking for a light-matter interaction which may be confused with a Doppler effect, but which is not a Doppler effect.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
If you are looking for an alternative explanation for the redshift, check out my page regarding the Redshift of Galaxies .
www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk
<br />Looking for a light-matter interaction which may be confused with a Doppler effect, but which is not a Doppler effect.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
If you are looking for an alternative explanation for the redshift, check out my page regarding the Redshift of Galaxies .
www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 11 months ago #14399
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
JMB, What does it mean when you say reject EMF? EMF is the force behind the total electromagnetic spectrum including all the light beams you want to fool around with so how do you then suggest this?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 11 months ago #14400
by JMB
Replied by JMB on topic Reply from Jacques Moret-Bailly
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />JMB, What does it mean when you say reject EMF? EMF is the force behind the total electromagnetic spectrum including all the light beams you want to fool around with so how do you then suggest this?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I consider only a part of the electromagnetic spectrum, excluding the gamma region where Maxwell's equations in the vacuum fail. With this hypothesis, thermodynamics is good.
It is not necessary to consider the gamma region to explain the "anomalous" red- and blue-shifts. It is possible that studying the gamma region, thermodynamics fails, allowing the creation of matter, for instance, but this is too complicated for me.
A principle of science is "reductionism", that is explaining more with less hypothesis. Effects obeying the conditions I wrote (CREIL, light-plasma interactions) allow to explain a lot of anomalous red- and blue-shifts with ordinary, usual physics and trivial astrophysical hypothesis.
<br />JMB, What does it mean when you say reject EMF? EMF is the force behind the total electromagnetic spectrum including all the light beams you want to fool around with so how do you then suggest this?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I consider only a part of the electromagnetic spectrum, excluding the gamma region where Maxwell's equations in the vacuum fail. With this hypothesis, thermodynamics is good.
It is not necessary to consider the gamma region to explain the "anomalous" red- and blue-shifts. It is possible that studying the gamma region, thermodynamics fails, allowing the creation of matter, for instance, but this is too complicated for me.
A principle of science is "reductionism", that is explaining more with less hypothesis. Effects obeying the conditions I wrote (CREIL, light-plasma interactions) allow to explain a lot of anomalous red- and blue-shifts with ordinary, usual physics and trivial astrophysical hypothesis.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 11 months ago #14401
by JMB
Replied by JMB on topic Reply from Jacques Moret-Bailly
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Thomas</i>
If you are looking for an alternative explanation for the redshift, check out my page regarding the Redshift of Galaxies .
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
There are several problems in the model of tired light:
- I do not see its foundation while the CREIl and plasma models are founded on ordinary spectroscopy.
- The time-incoherence of the light is not required, while it is a fundamental condition.
On the CREIL, you may read my papers on arxiv.org, the last being in physics 0503070 and 0507141.
Out of astrophysics now:
I agree with a lot of remarks you do in your web site. My arguments against quantum electrodynamics (QED) are different from yours:
- The theory is not precise, the modes which are used are not defined in a general way (although it may be: look at books on acoustics of the 19th century).
- What is a photon ? No wave function, and is it a type of photon for each of the various spectral lines ?
- All experiments are explained without any error by semi-classical electrodynamics (provided that the zero point field, discovered before QED, and necessary using a correct definition of the modes, is not neglected) while quantum electrodynamics must introduce a strange, ad hoc, "radiation reaction" to correct an error in the problem of spontaneous emission.
Einstein is a genius. Unhappily, he did a big error and received his first Nobel prize for it. Follow Planck : it is the matter which quantifies the exchanges of energy with EM waves !
-
If you are looking for an alternative explanation for the redshift, check out my page regarding the Redshift of Galaxies .
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
There are several problems in the model of tired light:
- I do not see its foundation while the CREIl and plasma models are founded on ordinary spectroscopy.
- The time-incoherence of the light is not required, while it is a fundamental condition.
On the CREIL, you may read my papers on arxiv.org, the last being in physics 0503070 and 0507141.
Out of astrophysics now:
I agree with a lot of remarks you do in your web site. My arguments against quantum electrodynamics (QED) are different from yours:
- The theory is not precise, the modes which are used are not defined in a general way (although it may be: look at books on acoustics of the 19th century).
- What is a photon ? No wave function, and is it a type of photon for each of the various spectral lines ?
- All experiments are explained without any error by semi-classical electrodynamics (provided that the zero point field, discovered before QED, and necessary using a correct definition of the modes, is not neglected) while quantum electrodynamics must introduce a strange, ad hoc, "radiation reaction" to correct an error in the problem of spontaneous emission.
Einstein is a genius. Unhappily, he did a big error and received his first Nobel prize for it. Follow Planck : it is the matter which quantifies the exchanges of energy with EM waves !
-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.400 seconds